grhill at corp.untd.com
Thu Aug 16 14:52:19 MDT 2007
I guess the idea is that once you're at the ceiling, you'll keep getting
the same salary for a long time and feel stagnant. I'd rather be
stagnant at a good salary than continually getting raises to be almost
where I should be. Plus, if you're underpaid, there's a better chance
that a competitor will whisk you away because they can afford to give
you a big raise. In that regard, I would think that it benefits both
the employee and employer to pay people what they're worth.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plug-bounces at plug.org [mailto:plug-bounces at plug.org] On Behalf
> Andrew Jorgensen
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:45 PM
> To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List
> Subject: Salary Spin
> Recent discussions have me thinking about something HR and management
> have both told me on occasion. They say that it's good to have a
> salary that's lower in the range for your position because it means
> they can give you bigger raises - there's more room to grow. The
> corollary is that it's bad to have a salary near the top of the range.
> I would have discounted the idea entirely except that one of my
> college professors told me something similar when I asked for advice
> about which job to take when I graduated.
> Assuming one is qualified for one's position, how can a potential
> raise be a better thing than being paid that much in the first place?
> I get that it feels good to get a big raise, but mathematically it
> doesn't make sense. Is there some subtle truth here I'm not seeing?
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
More information about the PLUG